Leoff
Oct 29, 05:50 AM
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is easy to use and works well.
The software is easy to use and works well.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
It would also not work so well.
It would also not work so well.
What's funny is, you could easily swap "Software" for "Hardware" in your little mantra and it still rings just as true.
"Apple is a Software Company"
"If they didn't sell the Mac OS they would be out of business"
"The Hardware is what makes the Software valuable"
"The Hardware is easy to use and works well"
"If they Hardware worked with any software, it would not be so easy to use"
"It would also not work so well"
Apple is not a hardware company, it is a computer company. There is quite a difference. Apple has a symbiotic relationship between it's hardware and software. One without the other, the company would be dead.
Apple is a hardware company.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is easy to use and works well.
The software is easy to use and works well.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
It would also not work so well.
It would also not work so well.
What's funny is, you could easily swap "Software" for "Hardware" in your little mantra and it still rings just as true.
"Apple is a Software Company"
"If they didn't sell the Mac OS they would be out of business"
"The Hardware is what makes the Software valuable"
"The Hardware is easy to use and works well"
"If they Hardware worked with any software, it would not be so easy to use"
"It would also not work so well"
Apple is not a hardware company, it is a computer company. There is quite a difference. Apple has a symbiotic relationship between it's hardware and software. One without the other, the company would be dead.
theregoesmybus
Aug 7, 10:00 PM
I purchase an Apple 30" display 2 1/2 weeks ago for $2499. Before I think about calling Apple, anyone have any thoughts on whether they would issue a refund for the difference? Or suggestions on how to ask?
Thanks, Andy
Thanks, Andy
bryanc
Oct 19, 02:39 PM
Vista will definitely change the landscape, but what effect this will have on Apple's fortunes, and the popularity of OS X is difficult to predict.
I think that there are a lot of people out there who are putting off upgrading until they see what this new landscape looks like. They've got systems in place that, while good enough for the time being, aren't great, and they'd like to see a significant improvement. These folks are running XP SP2 on two year old Dells or something like that... so they're looking to upgrade in the next 6 months, and they've heard a lot of good things about Apple and OS X and they're tempted, but they're going to wait and see how Vista turns out.
If Vista is a dog, and gets a lot of bad media attention out of the gate (this will be exacerbated if Apple can release a Leopard that makes Vista pale in comparison), a lot of these upgraders-in-waiting are going to be pushed over the edge and will buy mac-minis or new mac laptops, knowing that they can fall back to Vista if OS X doesn't work out for them.
If Vista is brilliant, and Leopard turns out to be just a minor upgrade of Tiger, most of these upgraders-in-wating will just buy another Dell like they always have.
The most likely scenario is somewhere in the middle... Vista will get mixed reviews, but will be viewed a a very significant improvement over XP, and Leopard will be a significant improvement over Tiger, but will only have a few features that Vista lacks, and some of the upgraders-in-waiting will take the plunge, but the more conservative will stick with the devil-they-know. As a result, the number of OS X installs will continue to grow, but it won't break the crucial 10% market share that makes it a 'mainstream' OS.
Cheers
I think that there are a lot of people out there who are putting off upgrading until they see what this new landscape looks like. They've got systems in place that, while good enough for the time being, aren't great, and they'd like to see a significant improvement. These folks are running XP SP2 on two year old Dells or something like that... so they're looking to upgrade in the next 6 months, and they've heard a lot of good things about Apple and OS X and they're tempted, but they're going to wait and see how Vista turns out.
If Vista is a dog, and gets a lot of bad media attention out of the gate (this will be exacerbated if Apple can release a Leopard that makes Vista pale in comparison), a lot of these upgraders-in-waiting are going to be pushed over the edge and will buy mac-minis or new mac laptops, knowing that they can fall back to Vista if OS X doesn't work out for them.
If Vista is brilliant, and Leopard turns out to be just a minor upgrade of Tiger, most of these upgraders-in-wating will just buy another Dell like they always have.
The most likely scenario is somewhere in the middle... Vista will get mixed reviews, but will be viewed a a very significant improvement over XP, and Leopard will be a significant improvement over Tiger, but will only have a few features that Vista lacks, and some of the upgraders-in-waiting will take the plunge, but the more conservative will stick with the devil-they-know. As a result, the number of OS X installs will continue to grow, but it won't break the crucial 10% market share that makes it a 'mainstream' OS.
Cheers
Popeye206
Mar 29, 08:03 AM
1. You intentionally ignored the point that referred to Apple's Terms of Service. For example, applications like VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop or even SuperDuper! could never be distributed through the Mac AppStore because they belong in a category that Apple does not ALLOW in their AppStore. As a matter of fact, even their own Xcode violates their TOS. But they wouldn't be Apple if the same rules also applied to themselves...
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons. Anti-trust lawsuits, anyone? Microsoft would only get away with that if they implemented a "choose your AppStore" program that would let the people choose which online store they want to use - just like they had to do it for the web browsers. I think that Apple should also be forced to do the same. After all, there is at least one other "AppStore" for the Mac out there that is even OLDER than Apple's own AppStore, and Apple misuses their power to drive those guys out of business. People stopped using Netscape when Internet Explorer came pre-installed on the operating system. Now people will not even try to look for another online store when the AppStore and iTunes are pre-installed on their computers. The same thing. The same rules should apply to Apple as they obviously apply to Microsoft.
Winni.... you're obviously playing lawyer and have no idea what you're talking about. Microsoft could do what Apple is doing. There is nothing illegal or anti trust about distributing software. They just have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If Apple was to give away the distribution, that would be more in line with anti-trust because then they would be using their power to give something that others pay for. As long as Microsoft would keep their rules within the boundaries of the industry practice, they would be fine to do the same.
Things change and companies with the better idea's thrive while others go away. Music stores are dying. Video stores are dying. Book stores are dying and software distribution stores are dying. But not because of just Apple.... because with the digital age many companies are by-passing channel completely and going direct. What Apple does would be no different than Ford or Mercedes distributing 3rd party accessories through their dealerships to their customers.
Also.... your rights on software depends on what's in the license when you buy it. If it's non-transerable, it's non-transferable. That's why you can get away with buying some of this software for $5. But it's not your legal right to resell. That depends on the license you agree to.
Whoa! The jury is still out as to whether the Mac App Store is a success. While a few apps at the top have trumpeted their success, I dare say there is a far greater mass of apps that are doing less business than before the Mac App Store opened.
In my own market segment the Mac App Store has reduced the cash flow for everyone due largely, among other factors, to the increased and sustained visibility of the freebies. It is crazy for Apple to court developers and then throw up a list of freebies alongside my own paid offering. Thanks so much -- for nothing! Where are the free alternatives to Garage Band, Keynote, or Numbers? You can be sure they are not on the same page in the Mac App Store...
As far as I am concerned as a developer, the Mac App Store is a waste of time unless we can all go write $1.99 apps that get downloaded by a million people (good luck!). Anything that requires significant development time is a loss. Plus, anything that costs real money can't be tried first from the Mac App Store. Developers still have to maintain websites, demos, and bandwidth but then pay Apple 30% for the sale in an environment that depresses prices. Success? By what measure and for whom?
I hear your point, but disagree. Putting your software in the App store will not guarantee success or failure. People buy what's worth it to them. They will pay for what meets their needs. Also, they have to know you exist too. Yes, the App Store can give you exposure, but you still have to market and sell your solution for people to find you or want you. Plus, the AppStore is one outlet and your other outlets should never be abandoned.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced. And as you point out... that is hard to compete in too.... back to my first point.
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons. Anti-trust lawsuits, anyone? Microsoft would only get away with that if they implemented a "choose your AppStore" program that would let the people choose which online store they want to use - just like they had to do it for the web browsers. I think that Apple should also be forced to do the same. After all, there is at least one other "AppStore" for the Mac out there that is even OLDER than Apple's own AppStore, and Apple misuses their power to drive those guys out of business. People stopped using Netscape when Internet Explorer came pre-installed on the operating system. Now people will not even try to look for another online store when the AppStore and iTunes are pre-installed on their computers. The same thing. The same rules should apply to Apple as they obviously apply to Microsoft.
Winni.... you're obviously playing lawyer and have no idea what you're talking about. Microsoft could do what Apple is doing. There is nothing illegal or anti trust about distributing software. They just have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If Apple was to give away the distribution, that would be more in line with anti-trust because then they would be using their power to give something that others pay for. As long as Microsoft would keep their rules within the boundaries of the industry practice, they would be fine to do the same.
Things change and companies with the better idea's thrive while others go away. Music stores are dying. Video stores are dying. Book stores are dying and software distribution stores are dying. But not because of just Apple.... because with the digital age many companies are by-passing channel completely and going direct. What Apple does would be no different than Ford or Mercedes distributing 3rd party accessories through their dealerships to their customers.
Also.... your rights on software depends on what's in the license when you buy it. If it's non-transerable, it's non-transferable. That's why you can get away with buying some of this software for $5. But it's not your legal right to resell. That depends on the license you agree to.
Whoa! The jury is still out as to whether the Mac App Store is a success. While a few apps at the top have trumpeted their success, I dare say there is a far greater mass of apps that are doing less business than before the Mac App Store opened.
In my own market segment the Mac App Store has reduced the cash flow for everyone due largely, among other factors, to the increased and sustained visibility of the freebies. It is crazy for Apple to court developers and then throw up a list of freebies alongside my own paid offering. Thanks so much -- for nothing! Where are the free alternatives to Garage Band, Keynote, or Numbers? You can be sure they are not on the same page in the Mac App Store...
As far as I am concerned as a developer, the Mac App Store is a waste of time unless we can all go write $1.99 apps that get downloaded by a million people (good luck!). Anything that requires significant development time is a loss. Plus, anything that costs real money can't be tried first from the Mac App Store. Developers still have to maintain websites, demos, and bandwidth but then pay Apple 30% for the sale in an environment that depresses prices. Success? By what measure and for whom?
I hear your point, but disagree. Putting your software in the App store will not guarantee success or failure. People buy what's worth it to them. They will pay for what meets their needs. Also, they have to know you exist too. Yes, the App Store can give you exposure, but you still have to market and sell your solution for people to find you or want you. Plus, the AppStore is one outlet and your other outlets should never be abandoned.
However... you're point on price is one to be considered. If you want to get impulse buys, you have to be impulsed priced. And as you point out... that is hard to compete in too.... back to my first point.
Please don't take me wrong... I'm not saying you're wrong... just pointing out that the AppStore does not guarantee anything if you don't have good sales and marketing behind it. Also, you have to have software people want.
more...
AppleScruff1
Apr 23, 09:21 PM
Don't you mean "Oh yay, another rip off of Steam, XBLA store, Impulse, Gamersgate, PSN, WiiWare or [insert any of the other app download stores that existed years before any of Apple's download stores]."
Hmm?
How quickly they forget, or most likely never knew. Some here think that Apple invented the wheel. :D
Back on topic, I hope that Microsoft listens to their users and lets everyone who want to download the beta and give their feedback. It seems to have worked well for W7.
Hmm?
How quickly they forget, or most likely never knew. Some here think that Apple invented the wheel. :D
Back on topic, I hope that Microsoft listens to their users and lets everyone who want to download the beta and give their feedback. It seems to have worked well for W7.
redalpha
Sep 12, 08:59 AM
http://www.apple.com/nl/quicktime/mac.html
Left Bottom (Itunes Videos)
iTunes-video's
Transporter 2Transporter 2
20th Century Fox
Red EyeRed Eye
Dreamworks S.K.G.
World of Warcraft Burning CrusadeWorld of Warcraft Burning Crusade
Enigmo2Enigmo 2
Left Bottom (Itunes Videos)
iTunes-video's
Transporter 2Transporter 2
20th Century Fox
Red EyeRed Eye
Dreamworks S.K.G.
World of Warcraft Burning CrusadeWorld of Warcraft Burning Crusade
Enigmo2Enigmo 2
more...
iceman1234
Oct 6, 06:51 PM
I spend at least 98% of my time in AT&T 3G coverage areas. While Verizon's coverage map may look impressive with their sea of red, they seem to be forgetting that dirt can't use 3G.
Yea I haven't been to half (ok 100%) the places were verizon 1-ups Att... Plus verizon turned off all the cell sites in my area so I was forced to leave Big Red!
Yea I haven't been to half (ok 100%) the places were verizon 1-ups Att... Plus verizon turned off all the cell sites in my area so I was forced to leave Big Red!
SPEEDwithJJ
Apr 8, 11:50 AM
@SPEEDwithJJ: Watch the Family Guy episode "New Kidney in Town" and you'll know :D
Thanks for the tips. :D I'll go check out that episode of Family Guy! :D
Thanks for the tips. :D I'll go check out that episode of Family Guy! :D
more...
sailnavy
Jan 15, 02:13 PM
So are we ever going to see Time Machine support for the TB drive I bought for my AEBS in preparation for Time Machine release?
miggyb
Jan 6, 01:22 PM
Google Video + YouTube + Myspace + Apple's Servers = enough bandwidth?
If not, could someone put up a torrent? From what it sounds like, the torrent would download quicker than the quicktime stream. Especially once you start getting 100+ seeders.
The question is, how many hardcore mac users know how to forward their ports? I'm making a guess that the average point-and-click user isn't also the one to know the exact date of the yearly keynote. Isn't it more of a developer/advanced user thing?
If not, could someone put up a torrent? From what it sounds like, the torrent would download quicker than the quicktime stream. Especially once you start getting 100+ seeders.
The question is, how many hardcore mac users know how to forward their ports? I'm making a guess that the average point-and-click user isn't also the one to know the exact date of the yearly keynote. Isn't it more of a developer/advanced user thing?
more...
Glideslope
Apr 25, 01:12 PM
For the win...
ok, thought it was
WWII.
more...
World+war+2+propaganda+
Role in WWII Propaganda
more...
booklet from World War II
Posters :: World War II
more...
Japanese Americans. WWII
exhibtion of World War II
US War Propaganda Poster
ok, thought it was
fivepoint
Mar 3, 09:33 PM
Go Ohio! Crush the unions! Return to fiscal sanity. No more hiding behind a union... time to return to personal responsibility. Ohio today, Wisconsin tomorrow, who's next? Sweep the states clean, Tea Party!
BTW, there is no 'RIGHT' to collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining is a legislative privilege granted by friendly law makers in some localities which can be quickly and abruptly eliminated (as you've all just observed.)
Public unions are idiotic. Imagine a private sector union where the union members themselves were able to contribute to the election and vote for the individual whom they'd be bargaining against. BRILLIANT! It's a conflict of interest - straight up.
Interesting quote by Bill Gates recently: (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/foundationnotes/Pages/bill-gates-110302-ted-2011-line-up.aspx) (thanks for the help twice in one day, Billy boy!)
I thought a long time about who I should invite to speak at the session I was asked to curate. I’m really excited about the speakers who are coming, because each of them is contributing to a revolution of one sort or another, fueled by knowledge and innovation. We’ve posted lots of content on Gates Notes related to these speakers and their topics, and eventually their talks will be available online too.
Also, I’m giving my third TED talk in three years. (You can view my talk from 2010 on Energy & Innovating to Zero and from 2009 on Mosquitos, Malaria & Education.) This time, I wanted to share some of what I’ve been learning about state budgets. I got interested in them because states supply most of the money for public education in the United States. What I’ve been learning, though, is that states are under increasingly intense budget pressure, and not just because of the aftereffects of the economic recession, although that has made things worse.
There are long-term problems with state budgets that a return to economic growth won’t solve. Health-care costs and pension obligations are projected to grow at rates that look to be completely unsustainable, unless something is done. But so far, many states aren’t doing much to deal with their fundamental problems. Instead they’re building budgets on tricks – selling off assets, creative accounting – and fictions, like assuming that pension fund investments will produce much higher gains than anyone should reasonably expect.
Eventually they’ll have to make some hard decisions about priorities, and I’m worried that education will suffer, even more than it is suffering already because of budget cuts. The issues are complicated and obscured by the complexities of accounting, so most people don’t fully understand what’s going on. More people need to investigate their state’s budget and get involved in helping to make the right choices. My TED talk is sort of a call to action for citizens, taxpayers, parents, everyone.
The Tea Party will be kicked out of office just as quickly as they were voted in. Hopefully a Democratic wave will come in 2012 and undo most of this crap.
Hahaha, keep telling yourself that! http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx ;)
BTW, there is no 'RIGHT' to collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining is a legislative privilege granted by friendly law makers in some localities which can be quickly and abruptly eliminated (as you've all just observed.)
Public unions are idiotic. Imagine a private sector union where the union members themselves were able to contribute to the election and vote for the individual whom they'd be bargaining against. BRILLIANT! It's a conflict of interest - straight up.
Interesting quote by Bill Gates recently: (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/foundationnotes/Pages/bill-gates-110302-ted-2011-line-up.aspx) (thanks for the help twice in one day, Billy boy!)
I thought a long time about who I should invite to speak at the session I was asked to curate. I’m really excited about the speakers who are coming, because each of them is contributing to a revolution of one sort or another, fueled by knowledge and innovation. We’ve posted lots of content on Gates Notes related to these speakers and their topics, and eventually their talks will be available online too.
Also, I’m giving my third TED talk in three years. (You can view my talk from 2010 on Energy & Innovating to Zero and from 2009 on Mosquitos, Malaria & Education.) This time, I wanted to share some of what I’ve been learning about state budgets. I got interested in them because states supply most of the money for public education in the United States. What I’ve been learning, though, is that states are under increasingly intense budget pressure, and not just because of the aftereffects of the economic recession, although that has made things worse.
There are long-term problems with state budgets that a return to economic growth won’t solve. Health-care costs and pension obligations are projected to grow at rates that look to be completely unsustainable, unless something is done. But so far, many states aren’t doing much to deal with their fundamental problems. Instead they’re building budgets on tricks – selling off assets, creative accounting – and fictions, like assuming that pension fund investments will produce much higher gains than anyone should reasonably expect.
Eventually they’ll have to make some hard decisions about priorities, and I’m worried that education will suffer, even more than it is suffering already because of budget cuts. The issues are complicated and obscured by the complexities of accounting, so most people don’t fully understand what’s going on. More people need to investigate their state’s budget and get involved in helping to make the right choices. My TED talk is sort of a call to action for citizens, taxpayers, parents, everyone.
The Tea Party will be kicked out of office just as quickly as they were voted in. Hopefully a Democratic wave will come in 2012 and undo most of this crap.
Hahaha, keep telling yourself that! http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx ;)
more...
tuartboy
Jan 9, 03:27 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I just searched for something on google and saw it all.
NOOOOOOOOO! NO! NO! NO!
no
I just searched for something on google and saw it all.
NOOOOOOOOO! NO! NO! NO!
no
kdarling
Apr 16, 06:36 PM
Ahhhh.... dude... the only Apps that don't really get approved are ones that do things that can cause security risks or just plain trying to steal your information.
First off, Apple does not have the time or ways to check for security risks. They don't have the source code, and we've already seen apps with banned talents appear. Moreover, security research shows that many iOS apps can access personal information (and many do send that off to remote servers without Apple making a peep).
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
First off, Apple does not have the time or ways to check for security risks. They don't have the source code, and we've already seen apps with banned talents appear. Moreover, security research shows that many iOS apps can access personal information (and many do send that off to remote servers without Apple making a peep).
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
more...
iBug2
Apr 30, 10:03 PM
There's no proof that a closed app store brought in developers because prior to the app store existing there was no 3rd party development on the device (well, besides jailbreakers). So you can't claim that. Case in point, the Mac App store hasn't exploded in popularity the way the iPhone app store did.
But it's pretty clear that if Apple closed the platform they would lose the marketshare in:
1. education (need unix shell, ability to write programs in Eclipse, etc)
2. server (need extensibility)
3. games (steam for example could not operate)
4. professional (Adobe wouldn't stand for not being able to manage their own business model, for example)
5. open source (major open source projects would avoid the Mac because App store doesn't jive with their licenses, Firefox, OpenOffice, etc)
They'd probably also face a major antitrust lawsuit.
It's an unrealistic doomsday proposition that Apple isn't stupid enough to pursue.
You are talking about things that would happen if they closed it today. I said 15 years. :)
And it's not a doomsday proposition or anything. That's just where the entire industry will go.
But it's pretty clear that if Apple closed the platform they would lose the marketshare in:
1. education (need unix shell, ability to write programs in Eclipse, etc)
2. server (need extensibility)
3. games (steam for example could not operate)
4. professional (Adobe wouldn't stand for not being able to manage their own business model, for example)
5. open source (major open source projects would avoid the Mac because App store doesn't jive with their licenses, Firefox, OpenOffice, etc)
They'd probably also face a major antitrust lawsuit.
It's an unrealistic doomsday proposition that Apple isn't stupid enough to pursue.
You are talking about things that would happen if they closed it today. I said 15 years. :)
And it's not a doomsday proposition or anything. That's just where the entire industry will go.
DavidLeblond
Sep 8, 11:28 AM
While I do agree that he isn't a thug/gangsta rapper, which is a good thing, I still believe he is sending mixed messages. He is trying to portay himself as though he believes/follows Jesus, and yet is swearing......
Do I believe in God? ******* yeah!!!
Sounds kind of stupid to me........ Mixing God and swearing....
I'll bet you money that when Jesus was doing his carpentry thang and hit his thumb with a hammer he didn't say "bless me, father" :P
I'll bet G*d himself cusses up a storm when we keep screwing up his planet.
Do I believe in God? ******* yeah!!!
Sounds kind of stupid to me........ Mixing God and swearing....
I'll bet you money that when Jesus was doing his carpentry thang and hit his thumb with a hammer he didn't say "bless me, father" :P
I'll bet G*d himself cusses up a storm when we keep screwing up his planet.
more...
ezekielrage_99
Oct 11, 02:14 AM
Yeah, Apple isn't going to sit back and let Zune steal its lunch!
I am leaning towards a new iPod product before the end of the year for two reasons:
1) Zune is being release, Apple needs to steal the limelight here.
2) The last iPod update was a huge deal for the Nano and a non-event for the 5G iPod.
I am leaning towards a new iPod product before the end of the year for two reasons:
1) Zune is being release, Apple needs to steal the limelight here.
2) The last iPod update was a huge deal for the Nano and a non-event for the 5G iPod.
ranReloaded
Mar 26, 02:28 AM
Just by chance (I didn't realize it was OS X's birthday today), last night I wrote a blog post: '10 reasons OS X is better than Windows' (http://www.adrianoconnor.net/2011/03/10-reasons-why-mac-os-x-is-better-than-windows/). The timing seems spookily appropriate.
You must have had a hard time picking only the top 10 out of 10,000,000 :D
You must have had a hard time picking only the top 10 out of 10,000,000 :D
applekid
Mar 29, 12:26 AM
Well, it sounds like the cops haven't given up on cracking the case at least. Just hang in there. If there's been so many break-ins in the area, it's time they lay down the law.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
mdntcallr
Aug 7, 03:05 PM
Sounds like a good idea. Clear out inventory. make some sales. As LCD prices come down, so should apple's list price.
But I am not into these models, I want a HDTV compliant model with speakers.
so i can watch HDTV via HDMI, ie plug in a blu-ray movie or watch HD directv.
give us HDMI with 1080P ability Apple.
with nice speakers, so we can have all in one!!
basically i want a tv/monitor
But I am not into these models, I want a HDTV compliant model with speakers.
so i can watch HDTV via HDMI, ie plug in a blu-ray movie or watch HD directv.
give us HDMI with 1080P ability Apple.
with nice speakers, so we can have all in one!!
basically i want a tv/monitor
iVoid
Sep 28, 10:53 PM
Too many folks think just because you have wealth that you have to build a oversized Gaudy McMansion as some kind of totem to prove your wealth to the unwashed masses.
I myself like smaller well built with high quality material and nice architecture with a large lot/waterfront.
Actually, this seems like a McMansion to me. Very narrow to fit into a tight lot.
Except the lot is much bigger in this case than a McMansion lot typically is. :)
I wonder if the design was made when they couldn't tear down the old house and they thought they'd have to squeeze it in. :)
I myself like smaller well built with high quality material and nice architecture with a large lot/waterfront.
Actually, this seems like a McMansion to me. Very narrow to fit into a tight lot.
Except the lot is much bigger in this case than a McMansion lot typically is. :)
I wonder if the design was made when they couldn't tear down the old house and they thought they'd have to squeeze it in. :)
TheMonarch
Sep 7, 09:41 PM
I agree. I don't think it was appropriate for him to be performing at a keynote. Just not the right audience.
z4n3
Mar 24, 04:10 PM
When I first saw OSX I was blown away :D and looking though my geek pics found a screen shot from my G4 Cube in cannot remember if the screenshot from 2001 was 10.0 or 10.1 as that cube came with OS9 and had them both 10 beta and 10.1 installed, anyway though I would share a screenshot of my desktop now and then then :D
p.s.
Can anyone remember the name of the iTunes player in the pic from 2001? it had LOADS of skins and the particular one in the pic! used to sink into the desktop when you clicked the screen or on another program, does anyone know if they brought it back to life? I miss that player SOOOOO MUCHHHHH :(
Funny to see that the Screen icon has not changed!!! since 10 / 10.6 hahha, at-least in 10.7 they have finally changed it to reflect the actual screens on sale.
p.s.
Can anyone remember the name of the iTunes player in the pic from 2001? it had LOADS of skins and the particular one in the pic! used to sink into the desktop when you clicked the screen or on another program, does anyone know if they brought it back to life? I miss that player SOOOOO MUCHHHHH :(
Funny to see that the Screen icon has not changed!!! since 10 / 10.6 hahha, at-least in 10.7 they have finally changed it to reflect the actual screens on sale.